Thomas BEACH

Sources:

Universal Genealogy, ALIAS: 5125-3426, GENDB
Register Report - Beach, by Sam Behling
Ancestry World Tree
Beach Family Journal
New.familysearch.org, Dec 2009

Notes:

                   NOTE:
     Historical detail in NOTES

THOMAS BEACH1 OF NEW HAVENA Biography By Eugene H. Beach, Jr.Reprinted from the Beach Family Journal, Vol. II, No. 3 (Fall, 1994)Thomas Beach, the "Pilgrim" ancestor of this line, first finds mention in the records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven for somewhat less than distinguished reasons. As a member of a fledgling settlement in a potentially hostile wilderness, it was expected that he and all other males of suitable age would be ready to defend the town against attack. This meant making sure their firearms - undoubtedly heavy match lock muskets with a stand or "rest" required to steady and aim them - were in good repair. Thus, at "A Court holden April 7th, 1646," it is recorded that:"Thom Beech defective in his rest fyned 6d."Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 229, 232And while it might be hoped that this sire of so many future patriots and pioneers might respond to this admonition and fulfill his civic responsibility, such was not to be. On the contrary, exactly three months later, "At a Court held at Newhaven this 7th July, 1646," it is recorded that:"Ricd Newman, Fran: Browne, Robert Vsher, Wm Bassett & Thom Beech for their defects in their guns, fyned 1s a piece."Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, pp. 260-261By the following spring, however, Thomas Beach's relationship with the civil authorities appears to have improved. Thus, by an entry dated March 7, 1647, it is recorded he had then or shortly before taken the "Oath of Fidelity" and joined in the "Fundamental Agreement" or "Covenant," by which the Scriptures were made the basis for both civil and church law in the New Haven colony, Hoadly, Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven, 1638-1649, p. 139. In so doing Thomas Beach, like his brothers Richard and John before him, was admitted as a "planter" and made a "freeman" - one entitled to the privileges of corporate citizenship and not, as has been erroneously assumed, indicative of a prior state of bound servitudeIt is claimed by some, on the basis of unknown evidence, that Thomas Beach was, as of this time, "... a young man in 1648 and unmarried and resided with his brother Richard, who lived at the corner of Meadow and Whiting Streets and that his brother John then lived on the adjoining lot," Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 12. He does not appear further in the early New Haven records, however, until March 1, 1652, when he is mentioned in the transcript of a trial involving one Bishop, accused of mistreating his servant, Samuel Andrews. Among other allegations, Bishop was claimed to have forced Andrews to go barefoot in cold weather, with the result that the young man soon developed painful frostbite. Andrews ran away to the home of Mistress Evans, who sought to provide for his needs. Thus:"Samuel Lamb, servant to Mris. Evanc, aged about sixteen years, testifyeth vpon oath that his Mris. sent him wth Sam. Andrews, when he dwelt at Goodman Bishops, to Thomas Beech his for a pare of shooes for Sam. Andrews,..."Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 166This establishes Thomas Beach's trade as that of a cobbler and not, as some have stated, a blacksmith, See: e.g., Elmer Taylor Beach, Beach In America, p. 43.Also in 1652 Thomas Beach married Sarah Platt, the daughter of Deacon Richard and Mary (Wood) Platt, of Milford, Connecticut, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 12. She was born at Ware, Hertfordshire, England, and baptized there on September 11, 1635, Abbott, Families of Early Milford, Connecticut, pp. 547-548. Some sources give the date and month of the marriage as September 25th, but the basis for this is uncertain, James, The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, p. 43. Miss Helen Beach, one of the authors of The Descendants of Thomas Beach of Milford, Connecticut, claimed that the ceremony took place in Milford, but no evidence for this has yet been found. It is clear, however, that the couple resided in New Haven for the two years following their marriage, where their first child, Sarah, was b
orn March 1, 1653/54. In this regard it should also be noted that at least one source has confused the date of Thomas Beach's marriage with the date of daughter Sarah's birth, American Historical Society, Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut, Vol. III, p. 91.The next record which has been preserved concerning Thomas Beach is not only the most extensive, but also the most interesting since it concerns an altercation and subsequent litigation between him and one Edward Camp. At a term of the New Haven court held on November 2, 1652, it is stated that:"Thomas Beech declareth that he went to Richard Sperries farme vpon some occasion betwixt his brother Richard Beech and himselfe, and found their Edward Camp, Ralph Lines, and Richard Beech: it seemes they were talking of him when he came in, for Edw: Camp said when he saw him, here hee comes; Edward Camp said to Thomas Beech that the message he bid his brother Richard doe to him was false, and said he you said you have something else to saye to me, therefore speake now, but Thom: Beech refused; Edwa: Camp urged him to speake but Thom: Beech would not, but said to Edward Camp, doe you hold yor tongue, I will not speake; then Edwa: Camp rose vp from the place where he satt, came to him and knitt his fist and threatened him, and he thought he would haue beate him, saying shall you teach me to speake; after this he went out to goe hom, and when hee was aboute three quarters of a mile from ye farme homeward Edward Camp ouertooke him, and threw him downe, and fell vpon him wth his cudgell, and beate him verey much, and said I will haue you know you rogue you shall not teach mee to speake; ye impression of the blowes were apparrently seene as ye Gouernor testifyed, Thom: Beech hauing showed him his arme, and the effeccts of them he found in his body, being sore beatten aboute ye backe.Edward Camp was bidden to speake for himselfe. He said hee desired Thom: Beech to produce his proofe: he was asked if he denyed it; he said Thomas Beech hath charged him, and let him prove it, and that is all he shall say. Wherevpon Ralph Lines, Richard Beech, and Rich: Sperry all testified that there was a quarrelling betwixt them in the house, and that after Thom: Beech was gone, Edward Camp eate some victuall and went out, saying he would goe fetch his gune wch he had left in the woods; but that Edward Camp beate him they cannot testifye. The Gouernor told Edward Camp & informed the Court that this case is like the case of a rape, spoken of Deut. 22, there is no witnes onely the testimoney of the maid and the effects found vpon her; the damsell cryed and there was none to saue her; then none but herselfe to testifye, yet that was accepted; it is as when a man riseth vp against his neighbour; so in this case, there is no other witnes but the parties wronged; he testfies the thing and offers to affirme it vpon oath, showes the print of the stroakes given him: and the partie charged cannot cleere himselfe by any contrary affirmation; nor (if that were permitted) dares he deny the fact vpon oath; but when the Gouernor was aboute to prepare Thom: Beech for his oath, by shewing him the danger of perjury in such a case, Ralph Lines spake privately to Edward Camp, wherevpon Ed Camp said he did not desire Thom: Beech to take oath. The Gouernor tould him if he would confess the thing it might be spared, but if he put him to it, and knowes himselfe guilty, the oath will be required at his hand; it were better for him if he did it, to confess it was in a passion and show his sorrow for it; Edward Camp said it was so; he did it in a passion, but it was but wth a small sticke that he strucke him wth, that he thought would not hurt him. Thomas Beech was asked what he demanded for damage; he said he left it to the Court, but he thinkes it hindered him five shillings in his labour, and the Court charges and time spent in runing aboute; wherevpon the Court by way of sentence Ordered that Edward Camp paye to Thomas Beech (all his charges being included) twenty shillings, and that he paye also to the Towne for dist
urbing the peace twenty shillings, but he was told had he not by a seasonable confession somewhat mittigated the sentence, the fine would haue bine higher, and he must haue bine bound to the peace; that such as are apt to abuse their strength might be warned, and others traueling alone in ye woods the better secured:/"Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, pp. 151-153This record is significant since it establishes, by Thomas Beach's own declaration, his relationship to his brother, Richard Beach. From the perspective of those claiming descent from Thomas Beach it is equally, if not more interesting as an all-too-rare glimpse into the life and times of an otherwise distant and enigmatic ancestor. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that the miscreant Edward Camp was brought so readily to justice. On the contrary, at a session of court held on December 7, 1652:"Thomas Beech desired execution for twenty shillings that Edward Camp was by this Court ordered to paye him, but refuseth; wch the Court would have granted, but Mr Goodyeare promised Thomas Beech to paye him twenty shillings, wth wch he was satisfied:/"Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, pp. 155-156The next reference to Thomas Beach is that which records the birth of "Sarah Beech the Daughter of Thom. Beech... the firft of March 1653/54," Vital Records of New Haven, 1649-1850, Part 1, p. 10. Within the next seven months, however, Thomas Beach, his wife and infant daughter would depart New Haven for Milford, some eight miles to the west. Thus, the old New Haven records contain this final mention of Thomas Beach, dated October 3, 1654:"Francis Browne was complained of for absence at Trayning also. It was answered that he was carying away Thom: Beech to Milford."Dexter, Ancient Town Records, Vol. I, p. 222Given the sorry state of the roads at this time, at least one author has speculated that the family's journey was "probably by water," Jacobus, Mary (Royce) Beach, p. 9. Indeed, the old New Haven records contain other entries which indicate that Francis Brown operated a ferry. In any event it should be noted that this record, perhaps unknown to earlier historians, contradicts claims that Thomas Beach was not in Milford until several years later, See: Savage, Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Vol. 1, p. 144 ["Thomas, Milford, 1658"]; Hibbard, History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, p. 421 ["settled in M. 1657-58"]; Virkus, Compendium of American Genealogy, Vol. IV, p. 732 ["at Milford, 1658"].Thomas Beach's relocation to Milford was undoubtedly motivated by several considerations. For one thing it would mean his wife and child might now be nearer to Deacon Richard Platt and his family. For another, the Milford town records for 1654 reveal the grant to:"Thomas Beach, lately of New Haven, an acre of land to build a house [on the] condition that he doe sett up and follow his trade."Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 12From the probate of his estate it is learned such a house was indeed built, "with round stones," in that part of Milford called Old Main Street, Beach Family Magazine, Vol. I, No. 1, p. 12; Vol. III, No. 1, p. 236. It was here that the remainder of Thomas Beach's children were born and where he at last died, in early 1662. According to one source his death came on March 1st, but this is suspect; the same month and day also being erroneously given by the same source for his marriage, American Historical Society, Encyclopedia of Biography - Connecticut, Vol. III, p. 147. Note should also be taken of the error made by Hibbard, History of the Town of Goshen, Connecticut, p. 421, which asserts Thomas Beach died in 1677, even though his widow, Sarah (Platt) Beach, is known to have remarried Miles Merwin in 1665.The place of Thomas Beach's burial is unknown. His estate was the first administered at Milford, with the initial inventory having been filed on May 31, 1662. Subsequent probate records indicate the following:"13 June 1666. Inventory of ye estate of Thomas Beach, late of Milford, deceased, exhibited a house and 
land included and prized at Thirty pounds, reserved for ye benefit of the children of ye sd Beach and securitie given for ye said Thirty pounds by Miles Murwin.Whereas Miles Murwin hath given securitie to the Court for Thirty pounds to be paid to the children of Thomas Beach; These may Certifie that J. Richard Plat have Received two & twenty pounds & ten shillings of the sd Miles Murwin, & do hereby ingage to the Court to pay ye sd to the three sons of the said Beech when they shall come to age 21 years. Dated 2 Apr. 1674; witnessed by Samuell Eells, Robert Plum; exhibited at Court 10 June 1674.At Court May ye last 1662 (in Milford). The inventory of Thomas Beach his goods & estate as prized by us George Clarke Jun'r & Thomas Camfield, 36:09:00. No will; Deacon Richard Platt informs that... Thomas Beach did owe... 36 pounds or thereabouts... the Care of Compounding with ye Creditors and ye paym't of ye debts was left with Deacon Richard Platt & his daughter the widow of the deceased.11 November 1674. Concerning this inventory... As also of the sd Richard Platts great parentall care of the mother & her small children, & of his great paines taking to preserve a title of ye estate as he could by compounding with ye Creditors, and maintaineing his daughter & soe many of her children as he did gratis; (yet) ye house being built with round stones & standing without a tenant it was like to fall, & ye fence much decayed, & hee seeing noe way how he could uphold it, he did approve and advise with his daughters Concurrense, yet the sd house & land be sold, and he out of his great love and respect to ye widow & her children, would have the product, as much as he could of it kept for ye use and behoofe of the mother & children, which not long after, the house & homelott w'th ye outland was sold, the house and homelott by Miles Merwin by ye order and consent of Richard Platt & his sd daughter Sarah Beach, whoe was then become ye wife of ye sd Miles Merwin, w'ch sd house & homelott was sold for thirty pounds to be reserved for the use of the 4 children of the sd Sarah Beach; and twenty two pounds & ten shillings is now secured in the hands of Deacon Richard Platt... and concerning ye seven pounds and ten shillings remaineing of the sale of ye house, it is in Miles Merwins hand."Beach Family Magazine, Vol. III, No. 1, p. 236, citing County Court Records of New Haven, Vol. I, pp. 6, 81. See also: The Ancestry and Posterity of Obil Beach, pp. 44-45The Court thereupon approved the sale of the house, appointed Deacon Richard Platt as administrator, and declared that "ye thirty pounds (it being the fruit of the bounty & love of the grandfather) to be equally distributed to the four children when they shall come to lawful age."Sarah (Platt) Beach was admitted to full communion in the First Congregational Church of Milford on May 3, 1663. The following year, on September 4, 1664, she caused at least two, if not all of her children by her late husband to be baptized. She remarried, as noted, Miles Merwin in 1665, bore him four daughters, and died on March 15, 1670.ISSUE:i. SARAH, b. Mar 1, 1653/54; bpt. Sep 4, 1664; d.c. 1690; m. Samuel Lyon, b. 1655, son of Henry Lyon from Glen Lyon, Perthshire, Scotland.ii. JOHN, b. Oct 19, 1655; bpt. Sep 4, 1664; d.1709 at Wallingford, Connecticut; m. Dec 7, 1678, Mary, daughter of Jonathan Royce.iii. MARY, b. Dec 27, 1657; d. before 1727.iv. SAMUEL, b. Jun 5, 1660; d. Sep 9, 1728; m. Abigail _____, who remarried 2nd. Reverend Samuel Andrews. No children by Beach marriage.v. ZOPHAR, b. May 27, 1662; d. after 1709 at Newark, New Jersey; m. Martha, daughter of Deacon John Pratt of Milford, Connecticut.NOTE: Some authorities credit Thomas Beach1 with a son Thomas, but this is in error. The supposed "son" Thomas is in fact Thomas Beach2, the son of John Beach1.BIBLIOGRAPHYAbbott, Susan Woodruff, compiler, Families of Early Milford, Connecticut, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, Mary